A private citizen enjoys the right to self-defense, and in cases where killing the assailant is the only means to end the fight and preserve one's life, that is generally held as justifiable. Law enforcement officers enjoy the same right.
There are internal investigations every time a police officer discharges their weapon. They don't enjoy immunity against any crime they commit. If there is no evidence of a crime, then there cannot be any criminal charges.
You are correct, except you skipped over the critical "entering a domicile without a Constutional reason" part. There is no way for the occupant to know it's lawful or even the police.
If it's done because of a immediate threat to life situation, then the people involved are rightfully risking their lives, to save another, and they know that.
If it's done to prevent the flushing of evidence down a toilent, then that's a bad trade for everyone, and the Senator from Kentuckey is right.
Why aren't there easily available statistics for this well-defined social function? I can get medical malpractice statistics very easily, why not law enforcement malpractice?
There is precedent for a similar idea that worked well in criminal investigations. A documentary was made about it called Crack House USA https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991025/ where law enforcement obtained property and the appropriate warrants for their investigation. A real slice of life.
Linking a static library into your program will increase your binary size, linking to a shared library will not. Smaller binary size is one of the benefits that shared libraries offer.
That decision is entirely up to the developer and the project requirements. If you're not writing a bare-metal program there's no reason why not to use external libraries. It's still perfectly possible.
From what I've seen of comedians, they don't appreciate someone talking throughout their set. It is distracting, and it is also insulting to them. (They are paid to perform, and they want to perform.)
With that said, some handle it with grace, and some not.
"Talking throughout their set" is just rude, that's not even heckling, which I don't support/appreciate, but is considered "part of the experience" by some. "Crowd work" however is a very normal part of lots of stand up acts. I could imagine comedians wanting some way to do that in a digital setting and I suspect that's what is being referred to here.
If anyone haven't seen it done or don't know what I'm talking about Todd Barry has a whole special where it's all he does - appropriately titled "Crowd Work"! :-)
When I wrote a very primitive UTF-8 library, I really began to appreciate UTF-8's design. For example; the first byte says how many bytes the character requires. At first it was daunting, but when I put 2 and 2 together, it really opened up.
I am sure there are many aspects I am missing about UTF-8, but it is all reasonable in its design and implementation.
For reference, I was converting between code points and actual bytes, and also implemented strlen and strcmp (which for the latter the standard library apparently handles fine).
The self-synchronizing property is also very clever. If you start at an arbitrary byte, you can find the start of the next character by scanning forward a maximum of 3 bytes.
Isn't that the original intent of section 230? Because these websites couldn't possibly moderate all possible user submissions for illegal content, that when illegal content is discovered that liability is held with the user and not the website hosting it?
Yes, that's the point of 230. It doesn't make anything legal that wasn't before, or illegal that was legal before. It simply assigns the responsibility of illegal content to the party that created it. Which is just a reasonable application of common sense.
I simply do not understand the motives behind people who want to abolish 230 - they would turn the internet into a stark split between heavily moderated websites, looking out only for their own liability because should they lay a finger on anything, they are culpable for everything - and unmoderated hellholes. Maybe they enjoy the hellholes and want more sites like that? Misery loves company.
I suspect most of the posters arguing against 230 are:
* Uninformed about what the law actually does
* Purposefully antagonistic and contrarian, or part of a coordinated troll campaign to sow discord
* Folks who have a bone to pick with big tech and will support any law, no matter how ridiculous, thinking it would cause big companies grief
* Spiteful that their post got moderated off a popular platform, and want websites to be forced to broadcast their content (despite this being a clear 1A violation of the company's rights)
* Really, truly, think that sites on the Internet should be either a wasteland or approval-only-posting, and you have to pick one
In any case, this kind of discussion around 230 is kind of burying the lede of the EARN IT act, which is a desperate attempt at not only further eroding 230 protections after the monstrosities of FOSTA/SESTA, but to allow the government to take away these common sense protections from a site unless they capitulate to government spying.
Which really should be the focus here, but somehow we're all distracted in the comments dismantling the faulty "platform or publisher, pick one!" argument again.
Do you happen to know off hand if any investigation was actually pursued to track down the missing coins or money?